As part of the 9/11 Truth Movement, I've been libeled and slandered as "an industrial-strength 9/11 conspiracy theorist."
In reality, I'm just another Blues Brother on a mission from God. My directives concerning 9/11 were very clear. "Feed my sheep."

Thursday, December 30, 2010

Take a step back and view the identity issue as thus. No arabic names were on the flight manifests that I have seen, and no names aligned with the named suspects/patsies which was broadcast within a couple days of the event complete with pictures. And when some of the named suspects are alive and well in foreign countries and disputing their involvement, a rational person would think: "Ah, just a case of identity theft that we've learned to be fearful of because of those damn Mexican laborers stealing the manual labor jobs that no one wants and having to fake their identification and social security information to be paid."

A hallmark of the G.W.Bush and his administration was to never admit they were wrong. On anything. Ever. Not even doing cocaine or not fulfilling national guard service. Nothing.

The FBI and others could easily have said, "Oops! My bad. Yes, indeed, identity theft occurred." The reason they didn't was that it opened up a can of worms for which they didn't have a full explanation worked out, and lying on the fly is bad form and is easily caught. No Arabic named passenger A on the manifest? Arabic named person alive and well? Then what passenger name X was used instead? How did the hijacker get that fake identification? Are there conflicts with the name X and a real person X already accounted for on the flight?

So, just like the initial NIST documents on the WTC destruction ignored WTC-7, just like the 9/11 Commission ignored and omitted things like Able Danger, Sibel Edmunds, Mr. Rodriquez, Mr. Jennings & Mr. Hesh, ... just like the NIST/FEMA assumed it was commercial aircraft and office fires so didn't test for accelerants or plutonium, the FBI on this hijacker front had to ignore this incongruity.

It was important for the 9/11 cheerleaders to be in lock-step on all points, however stupid or debunked. Keep repeating the lie. National Security was indeed at stake even if the cheerleaders suspected they were giving lip service to lies. If any of the lies are exposed, the whole house of cards could come down and the fallout will be our nation, certainly our govt, and most definitely the job security of those in govt at all levels.

Yes, they may have given their oath to the Constitution, but by golly their family still needs to be fed, and the consequence to wanna-be whistle-blowers was made clear. When did the Anthrax attacks occur, who was targeted, and who did they blame?

The issue with the DNA is an issue with the aircraft. You see, in all four cases, the crash and fires were supposedly so intense that they vaporized the aircraft, which supposedly explains the lack of wreckage, luggage, aircraft debris, bodies, and body parts. But if the aircraft were vaporized, kindly calculate the intense heat required and what would happy to bodies and body parts subjected to such aircraft-vaporizing heat.

If DNA was found, why not more of the aircraft? Conversely, because more of the aircraft wasn't found, how were they able to find DNA?

Hey, the lies on this could go either way and both ways at the same time just to keep it suppressed, and keep the FUD going.

Here's another point. Human remains were found in tiny pieces on the roof tops of adjacent buildings. Kindly calculate the energy required to sever a body into tiny pieces and eject it those distances. How do we know that the remains on those distant building roof tops was from WTC office workers or fire fighters and not those of the hijackers?

It is the truth that I am after. If I am mistaken on any point, I will admit I am wrong and apologize for steering you wrong. In fact, I will gladly eat my tin-foil hat if proven that "by golly, there was absolutely nothing fishy about 9/11 and no reason for a new investigation."

Discussion participants beware. Those who accuse others of wearing tin-foil hats should be prepared to seriously consider my propositions, act as responsible & respectful adults, and if warranted by the overwhelming evidence, eat that very same hat.

So, who wants to see how far down the rabbit hole really goes? Can you guess the twin rabbit holes that I champion?

In making my case for 9/11 conspiracy, let me first note that the official govt conspiracy theory (OGCT) has not been proven. They haven't made their case, and their arguments are full of inconsistencies, holes, and omissions. The govt has mounds of evidence that they could have released and made public a long time ago and put many outrageous conspiracy theories to rest. But they didn't and haven't and won't, because the evidence doesn't support it. The videos from the gas station and hotel come to mind. Or how about the videos from the airports that conclusively prove exactly who went through security and who boarded the planes? I've never seen all 19, just 2 or 3. For these reasons and many others, the named hijackers (patsies) are in doubt.

Boxcutters? Mention boxcutters in support of the OGCT and you forfeit. Only one reported telephone call mentioned boxcutters. The problems are: (1) seat back phones on that plane weren't operational, (2) cellphones don't work at high altitude, and (3) the trial of so-and-so (whose name I can't spell at the moment) brought forth evidence that the money-call lasted 0 seconds -- never connected. No boxcutters, and TSA now confiscates nail clippers and toothpaste and has you walk without shoes to have pictures taken of your junk if they don't cop a feel as well.

Know who Phillip Zelikow is? While at Harvard he actually wrote about the use, and misuse, of history in policymaking. As he noted in his own words, “contemporary” history is “defined functionally by those critical people and events that go into forming the public’s presumptions about its immediate past. The idea of ‘public presumption’,” he explained, “is akin to [the] notion of ‘public myth’ but without the negative implication sometimes invoked by the word ‘myth.’ Such presumptions are beliefs (1) thought to be true (although not necessarily known to be true with certainty), and (2) shared in common within the relevant political community.”

Dr. Phillip Zelikow is the guy who wrote The 9/11 Commission Report and was an expert in how to misuse public trust and create PUBLIC MYTHS.

For those patriots and Christians who believe and support the OGCT on 9/11 as the God's honest truth, let this be the appetizer into their bitter meal about how our US govt knowingly deceived and manipulated us.

Thursday, December 9, 2010

The USGS thermal imaging detected temperatures up to ~1400F. Easily explained by the long-lasting debris fires, and hot enough to melt lead from UPS systems, or to keep fuselage and building aluminum molten. Simply put, nanothermite and other explosives wouldn’t produce pools of molten metal, and no incendiary known to mankind stays hot for more than a few minutes.

No, it is not so easily explained by long-lasting debris fires, because debris and rubble sat on top of it, smothered it, and made it difficult for air/oxygen to fuel such fires, particularly when the fire department began dumping water on it as well.

Moreover, you should Google what temperatures a debris fire, or an office fire, or even a jet fueled fire can reach, thereby further shooting down your explanation. Mr. Limey can help you on this, because he was recently given a tutorial on this on another of Mr. McKee's articles.

Your statements about nanothermite and other explosives not producing pools of molten metal are only half true. The half that is false is that those mechanisms could indeed produce pools of molten metal; the half that is true is that those mechanisms could not maintain those pools of molten metal over time.

No incendiary known to mankind stays hot for more than a few minutes.

This is (probably) true.

Now if you really want an Occam Razor easy explanation for the detected temperatures up to ~1400F, try multiple milli-nukes (as is 1/1000th the nukes you are envisioning). Unspent and fizzling left-over nuclear material from companion fracticided milli-nukes can easily explain the recorded temperatures, their duration, the methods employed in the clean-up, the high security of the area, the suppression of photos & images, the shipping off of materials for recycling, the song-and-dance dog-and-pony show of various alphabet soup govt agencies to control the reports, control the message, control the propaganda...

Your response was very witty and crafty, and made me laugh. Such talent you have.

Mr. Plumber wrote:

Yes, fire creates ash…any questions? Ok moving on. Have you maybe thought that the ‘OGCT’ is ignoring the photos because that’s a trivial detail? Your accusations about it proving millinukes or EMP blasts is quite frankly, extraneous. Why didn’t all electronic equipment shut down when the EMP blast was initiated? You are adding a lot of claims which you have little evidence for.

As long as the pictures are ignored and no attention is brought to them, I agree that they remain a trivial detail.

Why would the pictures that document EMP effects of milli-nukes on vehicles be extraneous? Please explain.

All electronic equipment shutting down is an over-generalization and misrepresents the environment. The EMP in question was intended to be contained within the steel chex mesh of the towers. But, a smaller percentage of EMP slipped out through window slits at certain heights, and to damage all electronic equipment would first have to contend with other structures blocking and shielding as well as the radial distance diminishing the EMP intensity.

What little evidence I have still has to be addressed instead of laughed off. If milli-nukes does not explain the damage to vehicles as depicted in the links to Dr. Judy Woods limited hangout website, please explain how a gravitational collapse does.

What is "fire creates ash" supposed to mean or explain? Ash contains no material that can be consumed by flames and is not on fire, so how would this explain the vehicle damage? Dr. Woods even shows where the vehicles were located using Google maps, in many cases a journey too far for flaming ash.

Mr. Plumber wrote:

On to the vaporization…If millinukes were used then lots of stuff would have vaporized, not just human remains. Why are such large pieces of the building in tact? The core looked pretty solid to me. Pretty weak nukes I guess idk.

You are absolutely correct when you say: "If millinukes were used then lots of stuff would have vaporized, not just human remains." Just keep in mind that millinukes does not equate with kiloton nukes that you constantly envision; they were designed for limited yield; they were likely shaped charges to direct the energy in a useful direction. Testimony and pictorial evidence shows very little of anything that is recognizable as a telephone, a computer, a chair, a desk, a cubicle partition, etc. Could they have been vaporized, Mr. Plumber? And if milli-nukes didn't vaporize them, how does gravitational acceleration explain the massive energy sink that their crushing into nothingness represents?

Yes, please indeed note the large pieces of the building that remains in tact, namely the chex mesh of the outer structure that was needed to help bound the millinucluear side effects. The solid core? Gone.

By jove, I think Mr. Plumber has finally got it when he writes: "Pretty weak nukes I guess idk." By design and intent. For the operation to succeed in moving the giant America into action and in a steerable direction, the nukes could not be large.

Mr. Plumber wrote:

My eyes are open. But you have many more dots to connect my friend. Occam’s Razor eliminates nearly every claim you make. Use science, not your feelings.

I don't need to connect dots. I just need to plant seeds, and your readership will connect them. Occam Razor and science are precisely why milli-nukes remains in the discussion.

El Once said, “In general, the statements someone makes immediately after an event, as opposed to later points in time, are the most accurate.”

Numerous of innocent people have gone to jail and placed on death row merely because someone picked them out of a lineup because their memory was so “fresh.” Because eye-witnesses are prone to the same mistakes as you or I, we should always take their claims with a grain of salt. They never prove anything by themselves, they should be used as support or looked at after the fact, then we can see if we can make sense of their claims.

I fully agree that eye-witnesses are prone to mistakes. And eye-witness testimony can be manipulated. Ever hear of witness tampering? Ever hear of evidence tampering? Ever hear of report fudging? Lots of tools available to get the story headed where they want.

Mr. Plumber writes:

El Once said, “My feeling is that his “correction” to his statements at a later point in time rings of outsider manipulation that has coached him to try to spin it away from the lack of bodies…”

Thank you for not thinking scientifically and for proving my point by making your “theory” unfalsifiable. The key word, as you so thoughtfully put in italics, is feeling. Nicely done.

You explicitly asked for me feelings. You didn't ask me what I thought or had reasoned. You didn't even ask for evidence.

What Mr. Plumber does next is a cheap shot:

Like any bad scientist, you are fond of your feelings. If being subjective and using your feelings are a form of evidence, then you can prove anything you want, which of course you do because you go on to claim how it “rings” of outsider manipulation. You’re attempts to make sense of erroneous quotes is pathetic. You have no proof that Miller’s subsequent quotes were manipulated at all. All you have are your feelings. Way to investigate.

Mr. Plumber didn't ask for evidence. He asked for feelings on this particular matter. I indulged Mr. Plumber in his little game. O-ooh, he got me. I got caught in his feelings trap, and am now proven to be a bad scientist! Ouch! Drats, that really hurts. Kudos and curses to your crafty little trap that you played me to walk right into. You got me this time, you little bugger you.

Wednesday, December 8, 2010

The "chop, chop" nit should be directed at me, instead of Mr. McKee. But since you drag me into this, I might as well address your concerns.

Mr. Limey wrote:

How about that factual backup for your comment that the fires would not have got hot enough to weaken the steel. Come on man, chop, chop!

Having problems with the Google, are we, sir? You could learn a lot by entering into Google phrases like "steel blast furnace", "temperatures weakening iron", "temperature steel loses strength", and "temperature jet fuel burns".

What temperature does steel lose strength? At about 550° C (1,000° F) steel is at 50% strength and at about 800° C (1472° F) structural steel loses 90% of its strength. The properties of steel vary widely, depending on its alloying elements.

What temperature does jet fuel reach in open air? 287.5 °C (549.5 °F).

Already you should be seeing a problem that jet fuel can't heat steel hot enough to lose 50% of its strength, and this is before the heat conductivity of steel in a structure is factored in. And this is before we observe that the buildings were over-designed by at least a factor of 2 and that NIST said the jet fuel burned off in the first few minutes (assuming of course that it was a commercial jet).

[El Once] posited the view that the planes that crashed into WTC1 and 2 where not in fact passenger liners and the footage screened throughout the world was CGI enhanced. I still maintain that this is utter nonsense and I still refuse to converse with el Once.

Mr. Limey's childish stance on refusing to converse with me applies not only to CGI, but also to selecting his favorite burned out 9/11 vehicle, as amassed on Dr. Judy Woods website.

Please ignore the limited hangout titles and subtitles for the pages referring to spaced based weapons and directed energy weapons (DEW). Just focus on the evidence. On the first link, look at the sequence starting with Figure toast2a to toast4. It shows a parking lot at some distance from the collapsing towers and the cloud of dust rolling in. Then it shows fires starting to burn in various vehicles, but not all vehicles and not paper or other non-metallic debris.

Why does Mr. Limey refuse to pick out his favorite burned out vehicle? I believe that the starting point for his refusal is that he does not want to even acknowledge the pictorial evidence of these burned out cars, because to do so means that he has to dig for the official govt explanation regarding how gravitational collapse and fires from jet fuel and office furniture (80+ stories up) explains this. But this is something that the govt ignored and had no official explanation for. Ergo, better to come up with a lame excuse for not engaging Senor El Once than to expose this major weakness in the OGCT.

I love how you start "this isn’t intended as an ad-hominem attack" and then proceed to do just that with references to Salem Witch trials and Hitler in your "attempt to understand the psychology of truthers", as if the 9/11 Truth Movement were a homogeneous caste of people with shared knowledge, experience, and fundamental religious/moral beliefs.

Oh snap! I stand corrected. We do have shared knowledge: Newtonian physics. Good to see that you want us to drown, burn at the stake, or suffer in death camps for harboring such heretical musings.

Your modest but growing body of work on this blog certainly make proud Cass Sunstein, Phillip Zelikow, the NSA Q-Group, and all the disinformation warriors in the employ of the US/Israeli govt. I'll leave it as an exercise to the readers to determine which of the 25 Rules of Disinformation you apply.

About those photos. I’ll admit I laughed out loud. I find it hilarious that you believe this disproves the ‘official theory.’

What I find hilarious is that the OGCT doesn't have an explanation for those photos. It ignores them. The fires from dust theory is yours, I believe.

Mr. Plumber wrote:

I agree that it may seem difficult to comprehend how the dust could cause so many fires, but then again, if millinukes were uses it would be equally difficult to see much of anything could have survived. Also, if these photos are good evidence against the official theory, then it doesn’t make it good evidence for your theory. If nukes were used, then most if not all the buildings/vehicles would be vaporized. I was also under the impression that EMPs don’t cause physical damage, just electrical damage. What is your evidence that EMP damage is consistent with the photos of the damaged vehicles in the links?

A milliliter is smaller than a liter and a kiloliter. A millimeter is smaller than a meter and kilometer. A milli-nuke is smaller than the kiloton nukes you keep envisioning. The radius of destruction, particularly when within the confines of the chex outer steel mesh and at various heights in the structure, would not have reached to other buildings.

Vehicles in the streets were shielded from some of the direct effects of the nuclear discharge. Some of the burned damage to the vehicles is consistent with being hit by a heat wave; others are consistent with being hit by an EMP.

An EMP's damage doesn't have to be limited to electronics. It destroys unshielded electronics by inducing high currents in the metal it passes through. High currents cause high heat and can quickly cause thin circuit board traces and semiconductor leads to burn like a fuse. When that line-of-sight energy is directed at a piece of sheet metal like from a vehicle, the high currents induced can cause the paint and attachments like door handles and seals to burn away. Of course, the level of induced current is proportional to the radial distance from the source, and is affected by shading from other vehicles, structures, and the vehicle's orientation to the EMP.

The anomalous burn patterns to police cars and firetrucks as depicted in the pictures are explained as a side-effect to millinuke(s).

Early on you make the comment if millinukes were uses it would be equally difficult to see much of anything could have survived. Need I remind you about the thousands of people who were vaporized, whose remains could not be found in sufficient quantity to be pieced together, who had bone fragments scattered on the roofs of adjacent building? Open your eyes. Connect the dots.

I want your feelings on the Wally Miller quotes and what you make of them specifically.

In general, the statements someone makes immediately after an event, as opposed to later points in time, are the most accurate. They are the raw top-of-the-head data points before time has allowed them to cognitively connect them with other data points into potentially a completely different trend line.

The quotes in question were:

Shanksville, PA coroner Wally Miller who assisted in the clean up of the debris of Flight 93:

“There was just nothing visible. It was the strangest feeling... I stopped being a coroner after about 20 minutes, because there were no bodies there. ... I have not, to this day, seen a single drop of blood. Not a drop. ... [L]ike someone took a scrap truck dug a 10-foot ditch and dumped all this trash in it.”

Miller and staff have identified remains of 12 passengers ... USNews paraphrases... only 8 percent of the human remains could be recovered.

Plane crashes with passengers have bodies, body parts, seats, luggage, and aircraft parts. Miller's initial quote-mined observations seem to testify to the lack of the first two, while other witnesses to the crash site have commented on the lack of all of the above. There is no reason to dispute it.

My feeling is that his "correction" to his statements at a later point in time rings of outsider manipulation that has coached him to try to spin it away from the lack of bodies (which could imply vaporization by missile) and more importantly towards "of course it was the hijacked flight 93 and cause of death was known, namely impact with the ground".

Mr. Plumber continued (emphasis added):

... Miller was talking about the devastation of the plane impacts. The bodies were vaporized and discovering remains was difficult.

Vaporized, Mr. Plumber? Other than the anomalous Pentagon plane, since when do commercial passenger aircraft vaporize on impact so completely?

You could be implying that something was shot at the aircraft to vaporize them. Or you could be using that verbiage to spin the anomalies of this crash in a direction that matches the other three planes.

That 8% figure and even Miller's initial statements appear to be based on the flight manifest and based on the assumption that the aircraft was indeed Flight 93. If it wasn't Flight 93, then maybe 12 passengers is 100% of all there was.

Monday, December 6, 2010

The “clever” debunkers do not want a rational debate on the evidence and science. If they can get you off-topic by questioning your “delusional” beliefs, your bad intentions, and your cult actions, they’ve won half the battle.

It is much easier to agree with them.

Yep, you betcha! I am a certified member of the AE9/11 Truth cult. We are deluded into thinking that Newton’s Laws should have applicability in what we observed on 9/11. Our intentions certainly are bad from the perspective of “continuity of govt,” because by golly, we don’t want war crimes, torture, rendition, and a host of other paranoid plagues (figurative and literal) continuing.

I most certainly do hate American (leadership), those wimpy-ass Mo-Fo’s who can only think to vote in favor of their corporate sponsors and not in favor of the people. Certainly net neutrality, banking bailouts, and votes for more war profiteering are examples of this.

I most certainly do hate (unregulated) capitalism, because corporations aren’t people and don’t give a flying F about people, except the ones who help keep the profits flowing, and even then they’ll use them and abuse them and then show them the door. Unregulated and deregulated capitalism is one of the root causes of our problems, with the un/de-regulations being forced on us by corporate interests.

Sunday, December 5, 2010

It’s only a “religion” in the sense its “believers” are impervious to evidence in the material world. ... The truthers are equally divorced from reality but also do not have good intentions at all, so I don’t compare it to a formal religion.

Yes, indeed, I am a bit religiously fanatical about 9/11 Truth, but it is religious fanaticism to God-given mathematical truths of the universe of the form 2+3=5. Except that the cheerleaders for the official govt conspiracy theory (OGCT) continually tell us 2+3=4.7, which comes up short no matter how you measure it.

Football fanaticism and misguided American patriotism (mixed with perversions of Christ's Christianity) is what fuels proponents of the OGCT.

I will not admit that any anomalous aspect of 9/11 is contradictory to the govt's version, because the revelation of this fact unravels not just the crime, not just its "respected" culprits, but our very nation consisting for 50 States. Were I to let one wild seed of 9/11 truth germinate, it would mean that I'd have to be true to my oath regarding defending the Constitution from its enemies, both foreign and domestic. It would mean I might just have to muster up the courage akin to our founding fathers in wrestling our future from the oligarchs and corporations, and maybe to make new more manageable countries and territories out of fifty states.

Allow me to offer you encouragement to make more frequent postings to your blog. They are very representative and hold up well, but not quite in the direction that you would surmise.

In one of your previous postings, you lamented:

How (do you) deal with the incorrectly held view that refuses to be educated, and worse still, continues to peddle its nonsense to others?

The onus is on you to prove that the adverb incorrectly and the noun nonsense apply. As for the phrase refuses to be educated, does this branding apply to you?

Mr. Limey wrote:

I, like many sensible and critically thinking people, can not comprehend why there is still a vocal movement who denies the truth of what happened on that awful September 11th, when the WTC towers were struck by passenger planes, in a terrorist attack.